B
buffalo
Guest
As a baby step we are face to face with His works.
- Status
P
Planty_Business
Guest
Neither, in response to your last question. It was not a subjective analysis; it was an objective analysis of the moral teachings of Catholicism that have been used to justify immoral actions.
This will not be a concise explanation by any means, so please refrain from replying until I say that I am finished.
When I claim that society is harmed by religious virtues, I am referring to the specific religious virtues of Catholicism that a rational moral philosopher would not defend because he would not come to the conclusion that these certain behaviors are immoral to begin with. To understand what I mean by this, one has to first consider which moral virtues of Christianity a rational moral philosopher would deem important.
That murder is immoral is an obvious one. I know objectively that murder is not morally good because murder always results in the death of a human being. As an emotionally and mentally healthy human being myself, I know that emotionally and mentally healthy human beings do not want to die. Human beings value life, because we want to experience the absolute maximum happiness possible with our seven or so decades alive. Any emotionally and mentally healthy human being can tell you that.
Now, an emotionally and mentally healthy human being also has the intellectual capacity to empathize with another sentient being. He or she knows rationally that he or she is a being equal to any other human being, just with a few personality differences and different traits. In any case, he or she can tell that another human being experiences the same kinds of emotions and feelings that he or she does. When another human being experiences pain, he or she is not happy; he or she does not like to feel pain. The same is true for the emotionally and mentally healthy human being who is the observer here. When another human being is in the company of friends and family, he or she is happy; he or she does like to be in the company of companions. Again, the same is true for the observer.
Given these facts, it is rational for the observer to conclude that another emotionally and mentally healthy human being almost certainly does not want to die, just as the observer does not want to die. Now, the moral skeptic would ask why these facts justify the observer’s moral belief that murder of another human being is wrong. That is a genuine objection, but there is an answer to it.
Now, let’s briefly step away from the murder question to consider what, in the real world, the circumstances are for the observer and his fellow human beings. In order to get on with their lives, these human beings must establish some form of society, however implicit rather than explicit it may be. Suppose that, in a society that begins as one of complete anarchy, Human A wants to punch Human B, for whatever reason. Now, both Human A and Human B, if they are emotionally and mentally healthy, do not want to be punched. So both A and B want to have a law established that says that anyone who harms A (in A’s view) or B (in B’s view) should be punished, but if A (in A’s view) or B (in B’s view) harms someone else, he or she will not be punished.
Now, if both A and B attempt to apply this law, an absurdity will result: Human A punches Human B and claims that he should not punished for this, but Human B will claim that Human A should be punished. Human B punches Human A and claims that she should not be punished for this, but Human A will claim that Human B should be punished. If a moral law like this is applied by multiple people, the result will be that, according to the law, Human A and Human B should both be punished and not be punished. In order for a society to function - while judgments of guilt and innocence are made in a conclusive manner - a hypocritical law like that suggested by A and B cannot be established.
G
grannymh
Guest
Taking the easy question first. “What is so special about dying?” Nothing really special. Dying is the natural consequence of having a material anatomy which includes decomposition. Despite hours in a gym, our body rots away on its own.
The question “Why can’t we be face to face with the Creator now?” is one that most of us ask at some point in our lives. Personally, I would like to say to God: “You know what God. It is time for us to sit down and do some serious talking. What were You thinking when…”
And Jesus Christ, true God and true man, answers “Come to Me all you who are burdened…” Jesus also said that He would not leave us orphans! He fulfills this promise by being truly present in the Catholic Eucharist. So what if that is not quite the meaning of being face to face; it is the best thing going.
P
Planty_Business
Guest
Now, the skeptic here may again object that the dilemma above only relates to law, not morality. *However, morality is only binding insofar as it deals with the real world’s function. *Morals are not abstract facts, per se. *They are tools used to ensure the maximum happiness and minimum suffering of as many people as possible. *So in order to determine whether certain behaviors are harmful to society, we must consider them in a real world context.
So from this point we have established that laws that only either protect the rights of 1) no one or 2) only the observer are unfit for a successful society. Thus, laws respecting the rights of all people are the only rational laws that a government of a society can take. One can use this moral framework to condemn not only murder, but also slavery, rape, discrimination, theft, perjury, child and domestic abuse, etc. Catholicism rightly condemns each of these things to an extent. However, there are other moral evils that the Catholic Church condones.
One example is discrimination against homosexuals. You may not think that the preclusion of homosexuals from marriage is not discrimination, but it is. I discuss this issue in the thread “Are Catholics bigoted and intolerant for not allowing same-sex marriage?”, so if you want to debate me about that, go to that thread.
Another is the Church’s unhealthy attitude toward sexuality in general. I will not argue that abstinence is not an effective method of preventing unwanted pregnancy (though it does not deter rapists in the slightest, and women would be better off using the Pill to prevent births due to rape, but Catholicism condemns birth control). However, an unreasonable opposition to contraception has resulted in the deaths of Africans due to AIDS, as one example. Studies recorded in the American Journal of Public Health show that teenagers in high school to whom condoms are distributed are actually less likely to have premarital sex and get STDs.
Another example is not relevant to modern Catholicism, but it was during the times of Thomas Aquinas and Thomas More. These “saints” condoned the execution of heretics, which is atrocious. This brings me to the most important point:
You may object that the latter example is moot because it was based on a misinterpretation of Scripture and is no longer a problem. But was it? How can you know for sure that Aquinas and More were not wrong to execute heretics? What if it is your interpretation of the Bible that is incorrect? This is the key problem with religion. It is based on “holy books” that were written millennia ago in language that is too ambiguous for one to make an absolute judgment about how a certain biblical passage should be interpreted. This is dangerous. Faith is dangerous. Different interpretations of religious texts that are mythological have resulted in hostility among sects to the point of bloodshed. Christianity is no exception.
The bolded text above is perhaps the greatest reason that Catholicism is a moral threat to society. When your moral beliefs are based on foundations that are almost certainly false, they will be corrupt moral beliefs.
This is not all I have to say on this matter, but I think I have made my point. Faith is not a virtue; the story of Abraham’s attempted murder of Isaac is a classic example of why that is so.
So from this point we have established that laws that only either protect the rights of 1) no one or 2) only the observer are unfit for a successful society. Thus, laws respecting the rights of all people are the only rational laws that a government of a society can take. One can use this moral framework to condemn not only murder, but also slavery, rape, discrimination, theft, perjury, child and domestic abuse, etc. Catholicism rightly condemns each of these things to an extent. However, there are other moral evils that the Catholic Church condones.
One example is discrimination against homosexuals. You may not think that the preclusion of homosexuals from marriage is not discrimination, but it is. I discuss this issue in the thread “Are Catholics bigoted and intolerant for not allowing same-sex marriage?”, so if you want to debate me about that, go to that thread.
Another is the Church’s unhealthy attitude toward sexuality in general. I will not argue that abstinence is not an effective method of preventing unwanted pregnancy (though it does not deter rapists in the slightest, and women would be better off using the Pill to prevent births due to rape, but Catholicism condemns birth control). However, an unreasonable opposition to contraception has resulted in the deaths of Africans due to AIDS, as one example. Studies recorded in the American Journal of Public Health show that teenagers in high school to whom condoms are distributed are actually less likely to have premarital sex and get STDs.
Another example is not relevant to modern Catholicism, but it was during the times of Thomas Aquinas and Thomas More. These “saints” condoned the execution of heretics, which is atrocious. This brings me to the most important point:
You may object that the latter example is moot because it was based on a misinterpretation of Scripture and is no longer a problem. But was it? How can you know for sure that Aquinas and More were not wrong to execute heretics? What if it is your interpretation of the Bible that is incorrect? This is the key problem with religion. It is based on “holy books” that were written millennia ago in language that is too ambiguous for one to make an absolute judgment about how a certain biblical passage should be interpreted. This is dangerous. Faith is dangerous. Different interpretations of religious texts that are mythological have resulted in hostility among sects to the point of bloodshed. Christianity is no exception.
The bolded text above is perhaps the greatest reason that Catholicism is a moral threat to society. When your moral beliefs are based on foundations that are almost certainly false, they will be corrupt moral beliefs.
This is not all I have to say on this matter, but I think I have made my point. Faith is not a virtue; the story of Abraham’s attempted murder of Isaac is a classic example of why that is so.
S
Soldier_Of_God
Guest
You will be able to do what is in your nature. Having a divine nature excludes a desire for sin.
H
Hokomai
Guest
A wonderfully logical point, Planty. Great to see a scientific response to a science study.
C
cerad2
Guest
Great. So why doesn’t God just give us all divine natures now? Why wait till we die?
S
Soldier_Of_God
Guest
That’s a good question. We’ve been granted a temporal existence as humans and not an existence in aveternity like angels. Unlike angels, we are given a choice if we desire to ultimately be with God or not. Upon death, we actualize our decision.
C
cerad2
Guest
So what is the point of giving us a choice? What sense does it make?
If you had the technical ability to make your own world and create you own set of intelligent beings would you give them such a choice?
B
buffalo
Guest
If I was pure love, absolutely.
B
buffalo
Guest
Human life, suffering and death are redemptive and increase our capacity to experience God.
B
buffalo
Guest
The Church has the healthiest attitude toward sex and its purpose. The teachings of Christ and the Church elevate it beyond anything man can achieve or dream up.
C
cerad2
Guest
Note to self: True believers are very scary.
B
buffalo
Guest
Many people are scared of what they do not understand. We can help with ignorance though.
C
cerad2
Guest
I could accept ignorance but understanding is what is truly frightening. Seemingly normal people who think that the 3000 kids who died yesterday of malaria is a good thing. Of course 3000 more died today so I guess it’s not so bad. And tomorrow, another 3000.
B
buffalo
Guest
We accept death as a normal part of life. You dread the end, we look forward to a new life. It is a matter pf perspective. Death exists because of the choice of Adam. Jesus gives us a way back. Catholics are very hopeful.
Now how about the 3000 kids who were aborted today by choice? You cannot have it both ways.
G
grannymh
Guest
He did. Because of our spiritual soul, we can share in God’s life which is also called living in the friendship of God.
G
grannymh
Guest
Both angels and devils were given a choice. Please read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition “The Fall of the Angels” paragraphs 391-395.
G
grannymh
Guest
I would probably skip the choice bit. But God didn’t. Freely choosing His friendship meant the world.
G
grannymh
Guest
Not only that, but some of those crazy Catholics have the guts to actually follow difficult truths. Love one’s neighbor.
- Status